Americans need to understand the trials and tribulations of being a military family.  Through numerous interviews American Thinker has reached the realization that military families all have distinct differences and unique perspectives.  AT wants to thank all those who participated or were willing to participate.

Those interviewed wanted to make sure that Americans understand that military children are spectacular.  They are described by their parents as adaptable, independent, resilient, and maintaining a strong sense of patriotism.  Through their experiences they are able to view different cultures and values.  Yet as Sam, a “Mr. Mom,” told American Thinker, “all the people serving in the military volunteer, but their children are drafted.  They have no choice in this matter as to where they are relocated or how the serving parent is not there for different events in their life.”

It became obvious that children cope and react to their parent’s deployment in many different ways.  They are affected by their age, the type and length of the deployments, the support level, and how families are able to communicate.

Many of the younger children become clingy and react to the military parent as a stranger when he or she comes home for a visit.  A former SEAL’s wife stated, “My little girl cried every time her father held her.  She wanted Mommy.  I know my husband was hurt by this and felt rejected.  However, since he has been home, now it is all about Daddy.”

Other young children’s reactions range from adjusting well to doing poorly in school, and having emotional outbursts of crying, anger, and aggressiveness.  Angela, whose husband is an Army certified registered nurse, had to home-school her second-grade children because they refused to go to school when their daddy was away.  An Army lt. colonel noted that the longer the deployments are, the worse on the family.  He used to come home on a midterm leave for two weeks, but “when I left, the children’s emotions plummeted, grades got worse, and my wife had to deal with poor attitudes.  So my wife and I decided it was best if I did not come home until the deployment was over.”

An assistant Air Force chaplain described her ten-year-old child’s reaction: “She is afraid I will not come home and that she will never see me again.  I responded that I will try my very best but could not give her a 100% guarantee.  She bites her nails to a point that there are no nails left.  What seems to help is that we recently bought her an iPhone where she and I do face time together, so she can now see I am okay.”

A major in the Air Force Reserves also commented that he is having relationship problems with his sixteen-year-old daughter, who is currently shutting him out of her life.  She has been doing that since he was deployed in Afghanistan in 2010, even though he has been home for two years.  He attributes part of it to the fact that “my family knows that I have been in very dangerous places and worry that I am okay.  I only was able to have two fifteen-minute phone calls per week and I hardly had any time to e-mail.  I partially blame myself.  When I was over there, doing and seeing such horrific things, I had to shut myself off emotionally because I could not afford to lose it.  Sometimes it is tough to turn the emotions back on.”  He told American Thinker that his homecoming was a surprise to his daughter, and when she saw him, she screamed “Daddy!” and jumped into his arms.  He is having a hard time understanding what happened between “Daddy, I am so glad to see you” and “Daddy, I don’t want anything to do with you.” His wife explained that she thinks their daughter reacted to his withdrawal and numbness by making sure she was not going to be close to Dad anymore.  ”She sees him as changed and is protecting herself emotionally.” He has not given up, and he is working with his daughter to repair the relationship.  He wants her to know that he loves her and is very proud of her.

The different ways parents chose to help their children cope ranged from having a deployed parent doll, buying a “flat daddy” (a life-sized printed poster), making “Daddy on a stick,” having a memory box/journal, or, for the older ones, talking about their situation.

There are also schooling issues, which makes a big impact on teenage children.  Dr. Vivian Greentree, a Navy veteran, a military spouse, and the current director of research and policy for Blue Star Families (www.BlueStarFam.org), said, “I do not understand why orders have to be cut in October, which affects the school year.  To make stronger military families, something the military does have control over is relaying new orders in the summer.  This would make it easier for families to relocate to a new community and allow the children to start school at the beginning of the school year.”

After being transferred and relocating, the assistant chaplain spoke of her son’s problems adjusting to the rigorous grading scale of his new high school, even though he previously was an honors student.  She asked for some consideration: “My son should not be penalized for my choices.  I was told by the school that no exceptions would be made for military children.”  When told about this incident, Dr. Greentree responded that forty-two states signed a contract allowing for adjustments for military children.  These contracts will ensure that rules are in place requiring schools to respond, make accommodations, and understand military children.

Dr. Greentree reported that more and more families are now “geobatching,” where children and spouses do not relocate with the service person.  She noted, “My family has already moved four times, and I am not sure as a family we would move again, since my children are getting older and school is becoming an important part of their life.”  Another family interviewed has basically been apart for three years because they “geobatch.”  Their fifteen-year-old daughter, Stephanie, told American Thinker that she did not want to leave her friends and school in Georgia, and she is greatly appreciative that her parents decided to live apart when her mom was transferred to Kentucky.  The parents emphasized that they did it to make sure Stephanie has a stable lifestyle.

Dr. Greentree also cautions that children mirror the stay-at-home parent’s reaction, which is why endurance and flexibility were listed as the best attributes to have for the caregiver.  This can be seen through the eyes of three different spouses interviewed.  Tawana, a Navy veteran, understands the trials and tribulations of being a Navy spouse.  She has made it work by being very positive.  She makes a bucket list with her two boys, ages ten and seven, of all the exciting things they would do in their new home community, and she actively involves her children in sports programs to make new friends.  She and her husband make sure that he fits into the family schedule when returning home so as not to disrupt the children’s routines.  She agrees with Samantha, another military spouse, that open communication is very important, including using resources available, such as other military spouses or family support.

The former SEAL’s wife said re-integration was hard, since her husband tried to inject his rules on the family.  While she and the children saw it as intrusion, he saw it as trying to become a member of the family again.

Another spouse, Jessica, who has five children, including a special-needs child, appeared to be overwhelmed during the interview.  She felt that “it’s been a roller coaster ride.  I get really angry at times.  I have learned to do it alone.  It is a rough road and not very easy.  I miss him and want him to come home.  I am so frustrated and need him at home.  Of course, I don’t tell him any of this because I don’t want to worry him.  I do not rely on anyone but myself, because too many friends have come and gone, and I don’t trust others with my children.”

Alison, the author of Standing By, summarized it best: “Countless military children sacrifice a sense of personal security for America’s national security.  It is not perfect, but families endure because they know the deployment will end.  We are all in it together, and we become a team to get through this non ideal situation.”

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

The post The Whole Package: Military Families as Heroes appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Blame Lara Croft for fostering delusions of women in combat

It was a coincidence ripe with irony.  On the same day the main section of the Washington Post was trumpeting Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision to allow women in combat, the sports section was featuring an analysis of the “epidemic” of torn knee ligaments in women’s basketball and soccer.

Reporter Preston Williams wrote: “Young female athletes are two to eight times more likely than young males to tear their anterior cruciate ligaments, according to the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Area girls’ basketball players are doing their part to validate a statistic that one local orthopaedic surgeon considers “a national epidemic.”

What’s more, statistics originating with the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine reveal 70 percent of the tears result from “no contact.”

The Fairfax County, VA school system, writes Williams, started tracking knee injuries. After football — an incubator for all problems knee–wise — the three leading sports for complete ACL tears were girls’ lacrosse, girls’ soccer and girls’ basketball. This looks like a trend to me and might point one toward a belief that men’s and women’s bodies are fundamentally different, but what do I know? I’m certainly not a “gender” expert.

Of course those injuries are taking place in a sports setting where women prance around in the equivalent of pajamas or bikini bottoms with nary a jihadi in sight. What possible relevance could those statistics have to combat situations where women are carrying 60–lb. packs and running for their lives?

Can’t ideology overcome physiology? Military brass certainly thinks so. The WaPost says they are on board in a big way. Sounding a lot like Pres. George H. W. Bush after his first encounter with a grocery store scanner, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, enthused: ‘The most eye-opening moment, he said, came in Iraq in 2003. As the commander of the 1st Armored Division, he hopped into an armored vehicle and slapped the gunner’s leg, asking the soldier to introduce himself.

“I’m Amanda,” the gunner said, poking her head down from the turret.

“So, female turret gunner protecting a division commander,” Dempsey recalled, beaming. “And it’s from that point on that I realized something had changed and it was time to do something about it.”’

Of course Dempsey could have been buttering Amanda up in an effort to head off a sexual harassment complaint after groping her thigh. But not to worry, even though female knee ligaments are popping like small arms fire in Fallujah, Dempsey can hardly wait for full integration.

Sen. Carl Levin (D–Never Served Himself) also approves. “The reality is that so many women have been, in effect, in combat or quasi-combat,” he said. “This is catching up with reality.” This is actually lying through inference. What the left refers to as combat deaths for women are in the main deaths in a combat or war zone, which is vastly different. It’s like counting the woman who injures her knee in a fall down the stairs at FedEx Field as one of the knee injuries occurring in the NFL. (Note to professional apology demanders: I am in no way denigrating the deaths of these women. I am instead protesting the left’s exploitation of their passing.)

The problem with women in combat roles is not mental (although I have my doubts about a female who demands to be a grunt) but physical. Women lack upper body strength and aerobic capacity because they basically aren’t men. If a woman’s performance in a combat unit is sub–par then one of the men is going to have to do her job and his, with the resulting decline in the unit’s performance.

Bowling and golf — both pastimes Obama is familiar with — award handicaps to equalize performance during competition. War, on the other hand, penalizes those who handicap themselves through the adoption of personnel policies that only make sense in faculty lounges.

The Marines have already had a field test of women in combat and the women surrendered. Last September they opened the Infantry Officer Course to women. It’s three months of physical punishment that molds Marine officers. Of the 80 women potentially able to volunteer, two did so. On the first day one quit and the other washed out two weeks later for medical reasons.

Marine Capt. Katie Petronio wrote a detailed account of her deployment to Afghanistan titled, “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.” Her conclusion, based on personal experience, is that women are not physically able to take the punishment of extended combat conditions in the field.

But facts make no difference in this debate. Women in combat is not a reality–based policy, and reality isn’t going to influence implementation. Panetta says women will be integrated into combat units “expeditiously” So “Damn the Knee Ligaments. Full speed ahead.”

Gen. Robert W. Cone attempts to reassure skeptics when he explains, ““Women do not want standards changed for them. If a standard is valid, they want to be able to meet that standard.” The key word being “valid.” And what is “valid” is going to be subject to strict interpretation, for as an anonymous official notes, “The onus is going to be on them to justify why a woman can’t serve in a particular role.”

In plain language this means if a unit doesn’t have women serving, questions are going to be raised. Pentagon pencil–pushers are going to want to know why those officers aren’t meeting the “metrics” (another word for quotas) for women in combat roles. Come performance review or fitness report time, strict officers and drill instructors are going to be asked why they aren’t team players? Promotion and advancement are going to hinge on the answers.

Even before Panetta announced his policy, Army units — prior to deployment to Afghanistan — were requesting officers based on merit and being told the slot would be filled by a female, based on quotas.

It will only get worse in the future. Too many women will learn too late that “being on the right side of history” puts one on the wrong side of knee surgery. And yet again the elites that impose a destructive policy on unwilling recipients won’t suffer the consequences of their bad decision.

The post Now Soliciting Bids for the G.I. Jane Combat Hall of Fame appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Who would have guessed that one of the most warmongering presidents would be a liberal Democrat who was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize? Obama has gotten away with a secret escalating drone war because the left and their fifth column in the media have mostly turned a blind eye, just like they have with Obama’s expanded ground war in Afghanistan, not wanting to criticize a fellow leftist in power. Obama is not the pacifist he pretends to be. The executive branch’s escalating drone strike program has been taking place in secret now for over 10 years, all ostensibly justified by a war on terror that began on 9/11.

The problem lies not so much in using drones, which avoids the casualties of using U.S. troops, but the lack of any checks and balances on the executive branch. Oliver North made daily headlines and was forced to resign under President Reagan because of the executive branch’s unilateral foreign policy of selling arms to Iran and sending the proceeds to Nicaraguan contras. Obama is not facing the same kind of scrutiny. Sadly, even many Republicans in Congress are giving him a free pass. Liberal Republican Lindsey Graham, whose rating from the American Conservative Union in 2011 was only a 75, seems to have no problem with the executive branch unilaterally bypassing Congress.

The Obama administration claims that the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act gives the president the power to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against enemies connected to the 9/11 attacks. Yet Obama no longer uses the phrase “war on terror.” Is there an indefinite war that began with 9/11 or not? Obama wants the American public to think there is no longer a war on terror; meanwhile, he secretly continues and expands it. Congress is granted the power by the U.S. Constitution to declare war. If we are not at war, then there needs to be checks and balances between the two branches to conduct foreign policy

Drone strikes increased from 52 drone strikes in Pakistan under Bush to 311 under Obama. The Obama administration ordered an additional 61 others in Somalia and Yemen. The rate of drone strikes in Yemen is accelerating this year, killing at least 24 people since January. It is estimated that <href=”#document p19=”" a86186″=”">95% of targeted killings since 9/11 have been conducted by drones, an estimated 3,000 casualties. 261 to 891 civilians have died in drone strikes. The drones are launched from the U.S. and secret basesaround the world. A new secret drone base was set up in Saudi Arabia and used to kill American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011. There have been more suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban members killed by drones than imprisoned at Guantanomo Bay, yet there is more outrage over Bush setting up Guantanamo Bay – where those captured are still alive – than over Obama’s increased drone killings.

Some of these drone strikes have resulted in the deaths of key figures who opposed al-Qaeda and could have been helpful to us. Stanley McChrystal, the retired General who led the Joint Special Operations Command which oversees the military’s drone strikes, has raised concerns that the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen are increasingly targeting low-level militants who do not present a direct threat to the U.S. The killings may be needlessly stirring up anti-Americanism in those countries.

Juan Williams is one of the few media voices on the left who has exposed the hypocritical lack of outrage over Obama’s drone policy. If a Republican president had been discovered secretly increasing drone strikes for years, without Congressional oversight and directed at American citizens, there would be incensed front-page headlines all over the country for months.

The policy gives the president the authority to immediately launch a drone attack against al-Qaeda or its associated forces. There is no oversight by Congress nor restriction against targeting a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. There is no requirement to declare war first. What constitutes an “imminent threat of violence” is left to the discretion of the president and his senior officials. Reason magazine calls the policy a “license to kill.” Former Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, who used to chair the House Intelligence Committee, says it makes one branch of government the “judge, jury and executioner.” Charles Krauthammer calls Obama a “Drone Warrior” as well as “Obama-slayer” for taking out Osama bin Laden.

The secret drone policy finally started getting a little attention after NBC News Investigative Reporter Michael Isikoff obtained a copy of it and Obama nominated Chief Counter-terrorism Advisor John Brennan for CIA director. Brennan directed many of the drone attacks over the past few years. The administration has been reluctant to provide Congress with information about the drone attacks, not wanting any Congressional oversight. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to be given the full list of countries where drone strikes have taken place.

After intense pressure from Congress, Obama agreed to release a few memos from the Department of Justice. However, critics contend the memos are more to provide legal cover for his actions than reveal anything about the drone strikes. The administration refuses to give the Congressional committee’s lawyers and staff access to them.

While it is commendable the administration is trying to avert American casualties by avoiding the ground wars of the Bush administration, it should not be conducting the war on terror in secret without Congressional checks and balances. Hoekstra has it right about what Obama needs to do, “He ought to deliver the message from the president to the Congress that they will share the information and that they will let the Congress do the oversight that is necessary. The threat is real. We need to be firm — and I’m fine with the use of drones. I’m fine with targeting Americans, as long as there is an articulated process and as long as there is a check on the executive branch’s ability to do that the entire war.”

The post Where is the Left’s Uproar Over Obama’s Secret Warmongering Drone Policy? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Today, January 18th, is also Lee – Jackson Day in Virginia, as proclaimed by Governor Robert F. McDonnell.

We have changed as a nation, often not for the better.

We, as a nation, seem to have done with heroes of his type. Yet he inspired a fledgling nation, the Confederate States of America — young, old, rich and poor alike. Those who reminisce about him do so mainly because of his devotion to duty, honor and integrity as well as his compassion and wisdom. He had those qualities in rare abundance.

General Lee was not “hip” as Victor Davis Hanson uses the term to describe most of our modern leaders and heroes. Hipness rejects all but caricatures of devotion to duty, honor, integrity, compassion and wisdom.

America has always been a country of self-invention. Yet there used to be some correlation between the life that one lived and the life that one professed. It was hard to be a phony in the grimy reality of the coal mine, the steel mill, the south 40 acres, or atop a girder over Manhattan. (Emphasis added.)

No longer in our post-modern, post-industrial, metrosexual fantasyland. The nexus of big government, big money, and globalization has created a new creed of squaring the circle of being both liberal and yet elitist, egalitarian-talking but rich-acting, talking like a 99 percenter and living like a 1 percenter. And the rub is not that the two poles are contradictory, but that they are, in fact, necessary for each other: talking about the people means it is OK to live unlike the people.

Hip is like “cool”, whose power I wrote about not long ago: a general sense of tapping into the popular youth culture of music, fashion, food, electronics, easy left-wing politics, and adolescent habit. Hipness is a tool designed to justify enjoying the riches and leisure produced by the American brand of Western market capitalism by poking fun at it, teasing it some, dressing it up a bit to suggest ambivalence over its benefits without ever seriously either understanding their source or, much less, losing them. We feel hip at Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, but not so much in the organic section of Safeway.

Hip also plays out as professed caring — worrying in the abstract about all sorts of endangered species, starving peoples, or degraded environments. It is being loudly angry at retrograde forces — white males, the rich, gun owners, Christians, family types, and suburbanites, the sorts who ostensibly crafted the toxicity of Western civilization that you are forced to use and enjoy. Yet embrace hip, and all things become possible. A Martian would see the modern university as an elitist enclave, where life-long tenured professors make lots of money overseen by hordes of even better-paid administrators, that together cause tuition for cash-strapped and indebted students to rise faster than the rate of inflation without any promises that their eventual certifications will result in commensurate good jobs. A non-Martian would instead appreciate the hip nexus of diversity, eco-caring, and gender-neutral inclusivity.

Hip is a sort of Neanderthal mentality that is terrified of serious thinking, and thus substitutes the superfluous for the profound. (Emphasis added.)

When I read what passes for “news” about our CongressCritters of both parties, our President and his administration — and indeed about our now popular role models — I scratch my head and wonder where the decidedly non-hip qualities of General Lee and others of his generation went. Are they now dead to America or only hibernating? If not dead, will they be reawakened by anything less traumatic than another Civil War? Someday?

I hope so. However, there is substantial interest today in the causes of our first Civil War which, as I argue at the following link, was precipitated on the Southern side by concern over Federal emasculation of the Constitution. That article, posted on December 27, 2011, continues to be the most popular ever on my little blog. It has had 26, 406 views, 18,728 of them in 2012 and 7,636 so far this month. Most came via Google and other search engines, suggesting broader interest than only in the “violent far-right” conservative blogsphere.

Might reports such as a recent one by a West Point think tank create even more interest in the Civil War? Entitled Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right, it “lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as ‘a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.’” Here’s a bit more about how it

paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

The report also draws a link between the mainstream conservative movement and the violent “far right,” and describes liberals as “future oriented” and conservatives as living in the past. (Emphasis added.)

“While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo.” the report says. “The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community.” (Emphasis added.)

The report adds: “While far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”

The report says there were 350 “attacks initiated by far-right groups/individuals” in 2011.

The report “was written by Arie Perliger, who directs the center’s terrorism studies and teaches social sciences at West Point.” I don’t understand why even “far right” domestic conservatives need be a concern at West Point or how they could be relevant to what young Army officers of the future are being trained for. But gee whiz, there’s probably no need for worry. I hope wish.

Back to General Lee

The present article is to some extent based on Rod Cragg’s Robert E. Lee, A Commitment to Valor. Otherwise unattributed quotations and other material generally come from it.

General Lee’s father, “Light-Horse Harry Lee,” had distinguished himself as a cavalry commander in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. He later served in the United States Congress and eventually as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. On the death of President Washington, under whom he had served during the Revolutionary War, he was asked by the Congress to deliver a tribute:

First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen…second to none in the humble and endearing scenes of private life.

Robert E. Lee secured an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was graduated in 1829. He eventually rose to the rank of Colonel as Commander of the U.S. Army’s Texas Department in 1860. Although he considered slavery a “moral and political evil,” he declined a field command of U.S. forces when Virginia seceded and resigned from the U.S. Army to take command of Virginia’s military forces. Compelled by his sense of honor, he felt that it was his duty to do so. “I did only what my duty demanded; I could have taken no other course without dishonor.” On April 20, 1861, he wrote to the Secretary of War:

Sir, I have the honor to tender my resignation of my command as colonel of the First Regiment of Cavalry.

Very respectfully your obedient servant,

R.E. Lee, Colonel First Cavalry

In a letter to General Winfield Scott, Commanding, United States Army, Lee wrote on April 20, 1861:

General: Since my interview with you on the 18th instant, I have felt that I ought not longer retain my commission in the army. I therefore tender my resignation, which I request you will recommend for acceptance. It would have been presented at once but for the struggle it has caused me to separate myself from a service to which I have devoted the best years of my life, and all the ability I possessed.

During the whole of that time — more than a quarter of a century– I have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors, and the most cordial friendship from my comrades. To no one, General, have I been as much indebted as to yourself, for uniform kindness and consideration, and it has always been my ardent desire to merit your approbation. I shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind consideration, and your name and fame will always be dear to me.

Save in defence of my native state, I never desire again to draw my sword. Be pleased to accept my most earnest wishes for the continuance of your happiness and prosperity, and believe me, most truly yours, (Emphasis added.)

R.E. Lee.

Lee had served as a captain on General Scott’s staff during the Mexican War.

Here are some insights into the views of General Lee and his brother Sydney Smith Lee:

Neither Smith nor Robert wanted to see Virginia join the Confederacy. They agreed, nevertheless, to make their decision jointly if Virginia chose to leave the Union. On April 18, 1861, Smith and Robert met with their cousin Samuel Phillips Lee to discuss what to do if Virginia seceded. Phillips Lee, a naval officer, made it clear he would stay with the Union, and Smith promised to blow him out of the water by placing a battery on the Virginia shore. Phillips was the son-in-law of Francis Preston Blair Jr., one of the most influential figures in the United States, with a father and brother then serving in Lincoln’s Cabinet. He later attempted to obtain the U.S. Army commanding general’s position for Robert and an equally important position for Smith, but it was in vain, as both brothers refused to desert their native state.

When substantial numbers of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy left to join their States and the Confederate Army at the outbreak of the war, a retreat ceremony at which Dixie was played in their honor is said to have been held at West Point. Accurate? I don’t know but it is a pleasant story whether true or fictional. Here is a scene from a motion picture version:

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CRHtjjDslKI

Video link

Captain Fitzhugh Lee, as portrayed in the movie, was probably intended to represent a nephew of General Lee. “In May 1860, he was appointed instructor of cavalry tactics at West Point, but resigned his commission upon the secession of Virginia. ^[3]”

Following many military successes and some defeats, Lee was promoted to General-in-Chief of all Confederate armies in early 1865.

His depleted army could not maintain its defensive line at Petersburg, however, and he was forced to abandon Richmond and make the retreat that ended in his surrender at Appomattox, Virginia on April 9, 1965.

Colonel Ives, an officer who served on General Lee’s staff, wrote

His name might be audacity. He will take more desperate chances, and take them quicker than any other general in this country, North or South.

Another wrote, “His soldiers reverenced him and had unbounded confidence in him, for he shared all their privations.”

General Lee was compelled to surrender to General Grant at Appomattox, Virginia on April 9, 1865.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aO3-gFsJVdM

Video link

Richard Bales’ Confederacy also includes a recitation of General Lee’s farewell address. I heard that recording back in 1958 or ’59 when Mr. Bales visited one of our high school (then St. Stephen’s School for Boys) history classes. I vaguely recall a comment by Mr. Bales that one of General Lee’s descendants, an Episcopalian clergyman from Virginia, had read the farewell address for his Confederacy production. The soundtrack in the YouTube video sounds as I recall the recitation in Mr. Bales’ Confederacy. More than half a century later, the once familiar south-western Virginia accent seems strange, more similar perhaps to proper English than to what is often heard now in the United States.

A Northern officer who observed General Lee at Appomattox wrote, “In manner, [Lee was] grave and dignified . . . which gave him the air of a man who kept his pride to the last.” A private soldier who had served with General Lee throughout the war wrote,

As Lee came riding alone into Richmond [after his surrender], his old followers immediately recognized him and followed him to his home where, with uncovered heads, they saw him to his door. Then they silently dispersed.

And another:

“Howdy do, my man.” Lee – responding to a “feeble-minded” soldier who ignored military protocol and greeted him with “Howdy do, dad.”

And another:

General Lee reproving a youthful courier for neglecting his winded mount: Young man, you should have some feeling for your horse, dismount and rest him.

And another:

In the rush of this age, a character so simply meek and so proudly, grandly strong is scarce comprehensible” — An elderly Confederate veteran, reflecting on Lee in the early twentieth century.

Shortly after surrendering, General Lee wrote in reply to an English correspondent who had offered a place to escape the destruction of Virginia following the war: “I cannot desert my native State in the hour of her adversity. I must abide by her fortunes, and share her fate.”

Robert E. Lee, A Commitment to Valor, contains many other quotations from General Lee. Here are two of my favorites:

Duty . . . is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. . . . You cannot do more — you should never wish to do less. (From a prewar letter to one of his sons.)

Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or to keep one; the man who requires you to do is dearly purchased at a sacrifice. (From a letter to one of his sons.)

How might General Lee fit in with the United States of today?

Would he fit the description of a dangerous far-right conservative from the West Point think tank report quoted above?

believing it [the Federal Government] to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government.

Would he be favorably disposed toward this apparently successful advertisement from the Obama-Biden campaign?

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o6G3nwhPuR4

Video link

What, for that matter, would General Lee think of President Obama and his administration in general? Their foreign and domestic policies? President Obama’s penchant for Executive Decrees Orders?

General Lee may have been unique to his time and to a world vastly different from ours. Then, the individual States were seen as sovereign entities, more important for most domestic purposes than the Federal Government. Now? Apparently not by our betters in Washington or by the heads of many States.

We could perhaps benefit from a moment or two spent in reflecting on General Lee’s character while also evaluating those who are now our State and national leaders as well as those whom we might want to replace them. January 19th would seem an appropriate time for such reflections.

Perhaps inspiration may be found in this old Scots ballad.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GowMI4wvmU4

Video link

General Lee’s Commonwealth of Virginia still has blue mountains, far away from Northern Virginia and the Seat of Government in Washington, D.C. Perhaps there are still at least a few people there and in other States who recall General Lee’s memory fondly and cherish his old fashioned, un-”hip,” notions of what States are for. Perhaps they also cherish his now quaint ideas of duty, honor, integrity, compassion and wisdom. I hope so.

Did I mention that there seems to be renewed interest in the Second Amendment as it may be fading into official obscurity? Oddly and doubtless merely a coincidence, a Guns Across America “protest against ANY and ALL future gun legislation” is scheduled for January 19th. The event may necessitate an addendum to Arie Perliger’s treatise on far right fundamentalists.

First published at Dan Miller’s Blog.

The post Thoughts on the Anniversary of General Robert E. Lee’s Birth appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The Soldier stood and faced God,
which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
just as brightly as his brass.
‘Step forward now, Soldier,
how shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?’

As the Soldier waited quietly,
for the judgment of his God.
‘Step forward now, you Soldier,
you’ve borne your burdens well.

Walk peacefully on Heaven’s streets,
you’ve done your time in Hell.’
~Author Unknown~

It’s the Soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us the freedom of the press.
It’s the Soldier, not the poet,

The post THE FINAL INSPECTION appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Manual warns soldiers in Afghanistan not to talk about certain subjects

By: Jack Minor

Posted: Dec. 15th, 2012

A new Army manual that warns American soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid talking about certain topics has unwittingly acknowledged that Western taboos such as pedophilia are an inherent part of Islamic culture.

“By mentioning that pedophilia and women’s rights and saying that soldiers should not mention such things they are tacitly admitting that those things are indeed part of Islam,” said Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a new 75-page Army manual suggests U.S. soldiers are to blame for the large number of deadly attacks on them by Afghan security forces. The manual reportedly says the soldiers may have brought the attacks on themselves because of insensitivity towards Islamic culture.

The post Army acknowledges pedophilia part of Islam appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Photo: Taliban shoot woman dead five times as she was allegedly accused of adultery. Obama say, “respect it!”

By: Judicial Watch

Posted: Dec. 13th, 2012

The new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other Islamic things.

Mass beheadings, gendercide, gassing of girls’ schools, mass slaughter of non-believers and less than devout Muslims, attacks on US soldiers, acid attacks on women, brutal burka enforcement ….. must not be criticzed. So speaketh the caliph in the White House. He is stalking these anti-humans for peace, after all.

Bloody hell, bring our boys home. Now.

Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a  new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.

It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but a mainstream newspaper got a sneak preview and published an article that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame “American cultural ignorance.” The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. “Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence.”

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”

At least one high-ranking military official had the backbone to publicly criticize the new manual, albeit through a spokesperson. U.S. Marine General John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, doesn’t endorse it and rejected a proposed forward drafted by Army officials in his name. “He does not approve of its contents,” according to a military spokesman quoted in the story.

Earlier this year the Obama Administration changed the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Under White House orders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism in a government-wide call to end Islamophobia.

Under Obama practically every major federal agency has been ordered to participate in Muslim outreach initiatives, including the Justice Department with a special program to protect Islamic civil rights, Homeland Security meetings with extremist Muslim organizations and the nation’s space agency (NASA) with an unprecedented mission to focus on Muslim diplomacy.

Additionally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S. and the administration sent an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission. The Obama Administration even ordered a government-funded meal program for home-bound seniors to offer halal cuisine prepared according to Islamic law.

Source: AtlasShrugs2000.com

The post New Army Manual Orders Soldiers Not To Criticize Taliban, pedophilia, “anything related to Islam” or “advocate for women’s rights” appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

The court martial of Army Major Nidal Hasan, who murdered thirteen people at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009 and wounded thirty-two others while screaming Allah Akbar, has dragged on too long. If he had been forcibly shaved he would have had grounds to continue the charade and, if eventually convicted, to appeal that conviction for many years.

Defense counsel likely tried to inject legal error into the proceedings as grounds for post-conviction appeals. That’s what defense counsel try to do when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. On December 3th the military judge, Colonel Gregory Gross, was removed principally because he may have shown bias by insisting that Major Hasan’s beard be shaved.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which sits in Washington, D.C., said in its 10-page opinion that because of a variety of factors, a reasonable person “would harbor doubts about the military judge’s impartiality.” The court did not say that the trial judge was actually biased, officials noted, but instead ordered the removal for the appearance of bias. The court also set aside the six previous contempt convictions against Hasan, who has refused orders from Gross to shave his beard and conform with Army grooming standards in the courtroom, though it did not issue a ruling on whether Hasan has a right to wear his beard under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

A new trial judge will be detailed to the court-martial and will decide on the matter when the case goes back on the record in open court.

That ruling riles but is correct pragmatically. Of course Major Hasan is required to be clean shaven; he is still an Army officer and was appearing at his court martial. He apparently did not discover his Islamic obligation to grow a beard until after his court martial had begun. Perhaps defense counsel suggested that a beard could disrupt the proceedings and thereby provide grounds for appeal later; perhaps Major Hasan just decided to grow a beard because of a conveniently timed realization that his Religion of Peace requires it. It does not matter which and there is, in any event, no way to determine why he did it. Was Judge Gross prejudiced against him? Only if requiring him to comply with grooming standards required of all other Army officers shows prejudice; it does not. That does not matter either. The important thing is that the court martial can now proceed, at least until defense counsel discovers additional bases for disruption and subsequent appeal.

If during his next court appearance Major Hasan wears a tutu, Michael Jackson moon boots and a head cover of the sort women are required to wear in Islamist places, the court martial should ignore the attempt at intentionally farcical insults and proceed with the trial. Otherwise, Major Hasan is likely to die of old age while supported by taxpayers as his appeals wend their way back and forth from the trial court through various levels of appeal, back to trial and on and on and on. That would be a disgrace to the military justice system and to the nation. A former Army JAG officer, I have long been very proud of the American system of military justice and would be outraged.

The important thing is to give him a fair trial where all of the relevant and clearly admissible evidence is considered, for the court to decide on his guilt or innocence and, if found guilty, to impose appropriate punishment.

A female military judge, Colonel Tara A. Osborn, has been designated as Colonel Gross’ replacement. That may generate grounds for further delay, disruption and eventually appeal from a conviction. Those grounds may be no less specious than those that resulted in the replacement of Colonel Gross. Whether they are specious or valid matters little because in either event the trial may be delayed and disrupted further and the appeal further protracted. Here are two thoughts:

♦ Might the designation of a female military judge to preside over the trial of an Islamist male be deemed evidence of prejudice? Arguments to that effect could be made.

♦ If those arguments are rejected, must Colonel Osborn’s head be covered in Islamist fashion during the trial so as not to offend Major Hasan’s sense of Islamist decency? Would a failure to do that be deemed evidence of prejudice? Stranger things have happened.

It would have made more sense to designate a male military judge to preside — if moving the trial forward was the goal and if delaying Major Hasan’s conviction and execution indefinitely was not the goal. Perhaps further thought will be given to this matter; it should be, soon.

First published at Dan Miller’s Blog.

The post Major Hasan gets to keep his beard. That’s Good. appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

By: Unknown

Posted: A Long time ago but it bears repeating !

.   God Bless our Military. And get the Kleenex!

Letter from an airline pilot:
He writes: My lead flight attendant came to me and said, “We have an H.R. On this flight.” (H.R. Stands for human remains.) “Are they military?” I asked.

‘Yes’, she said.

‘Is there an escort?’ I asked.

‘Yes, I already assigned him a seat’.

‘Would you please tell him to come to the flight deck. You can board him early,” I said..

A short while later, a young army sergeant entered the flight deck. He was the image of the perfectly dressed soldier. He introduced himself and I asked him about his soldier. The escorts of these fallen soldiers talk about them as if they are still alive and still with us.

‘My soldier is on his way back to Virginia ,’ he said. He proceeded to answer my questions, but offered no words.

I asked him if there was anything I could do for him and he said no. I told him that he had the toughest job in the military and that I appreciated the work that he does for the families of our fallen soldiers. The first officer and I got up out of our seats to shake his hand. He left the flight deck to find his seat.

We completed our pre-flight checks, pushed back and performed an uneventful departure. About 30 minutes into our flight I received a call from the lead flight attendant in the cabin. ‘I just found out the family of the soldier we are carrying, is on board’, she said. She then proceeded to tell me that the father, mother, wife and 2-year old daughter were escorting their son, husband, and father home. The family was upset because they were unable to see the container that the soldier was in before we left. We were on our way to a major hub at which the family was going to wait four hours for the connecting flight home to Virginia .

The father of the soldier told the flight attendant that knowing his son was below him in the cargo compartment and being unable to see him was too much for him and the family to bear. He had asked the flight attendant if there was anything that could be done to allow them to see him upon our arrival. The family wanted to be outside by the cargo door to watch the soldier being taken off the airplane. I could hear the desperation in the flight attendants voice when she asked me if there was anything I could do. ‘I’m on it’, I said. I told her that I would get back to her.

Airborne communication with my company normally occurs in the form of e-mail like messages. I decided to bypass this system and contact my flight dispatcher directly on a Secondary radio. There is a radio operator in the operations control center who connects you to the telephone of the dispatcher. I was in direct contact with the dispatcher. I explained the situation I had on board with the family and what it was the family wanted. He said he understood and that he would get back to me.

Two hours went by and I had not heard from the dispatcher. We were going to get busy soon and I needed to know what to tell the family. I sent a text message asking for an update. I Saved the return message from the dispatcher and the following is the text:

Captain, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. There is policy on this now and I had to check on a few things. Upon your arrival a dedicated escort team will meet the aircraft.  The team will escort the family to the ramp and plane side. A van will be used to load the remains with a secondary van for the family. The family will be taken to their departure area and escorted into the terminal where the remains can be seen on the ramp. It is a private area for the family only. When the connecting aircraft arrives, the family will be escorted onto the ramp and plane side to watch the remains being loaded for the final leg home. Captain, most of us here in flight control are veterans.. Please pass our condolences on to the family. Thanks.’

 I sent a message back telling flight control thanks for a good job. I printed out the message and gave it to the lead flight attendant to pass on to the father. The lead flight attendant was very thankful and told me, ‘You have no idea how much this will mean to them.’

Things started getting busy for the descent, approach and landing. After landing, we cleared the runway and taxied to the ramp area. The ramp is huge with 15 gates on either side of the alleyway. It is always a busy area with aircraft maneuvering every which way to enter and exit. When we entered the ramp and checked in with the ramp controller, we were told that all traffic was being held for us.

‘There is a team in place to meet the aircraft’, we were told. It looked like it was all coming together, then I realized that once we turned the seat belt sign off, everyone would stand up at once and delay the family from getting off the airplane. As we approached our gate, I asked the co-pilot to tell the ramp controller we were going to stop short of the gate to make an announcement to the passengers. He did that and the ramp controller said, ‘Take your time.’

I stopped the aircraft and set the parking brake. I pushed the public address button and said,

‘Ladies and gentleman, this is your Captain speaking I have stopped short of our gate to make a special announcement. We have a passenger on board who deserves our honor and respect. His Name is Private XXXXXX, a soldier who recently lost his life. Private XXXXXX is under your feet in the cargo hold. Escorting him today is Army Sergeant XXXXXXX. Also, on board are his father, mother, wife, and daughter. Your entire flight crew is asking for all passengers to remain in their seats to allow the family to exit the aircraft first.  Thank you.’

We continued the turn to the gate, came to a stop and started our shutdown procedures. A couple of minutes later I opened the cockpit door. I found the two forward flight attendants crying, something you just do not see. I was told that after we came to a stop, every passenger on the aircraft stayed in their seats, waiting for the family to exit the aircraft.

When the family got up and gathered their things, a passenger slowly started to clap his hands. Moments later more passengers joined in and soon the entire aircraft was
clapping. Words of ‘God Bless You’, I’m sorry, thank you, be proud, and other kind words were uttered to the family as they made their way down the aisle and out of the airplane.
They were escorted down to the ramp to finally be with their loved one. 
Many of the passengers disembarking thanked me for the announcement I had made. They were just words, I told them, I could say them over and over again, but nothing I say will bring back that brave soldier.

I respectfully ask that all of you reflect on this event and the sacrifices that millions of our men and women have made to ensure our freedom and safety in these United States of AMERICA

Foot note:

I know everyone who has served their country who reads this will have tears in their eyes, including me.

Prayer chain for our Military… Don’t break it!

They die for me and mine and you and yours and deserve our honor and respect.

When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world..

‘Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us..bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need.. In Jesus Name, Amen.’ 

GOD BLESS YOU!!!

The post Airline Captain & our military appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Soldiers returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan have a higher incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to experts. (Reuters)

By: Joshua Rhett Miller

Posted: Nov. 9th, 2012

A new program in Pennsylvania seeks to give troubled veterans plagued with minor legal issues a second chance — and to help the returning soldiers make a “smooth transition” when they return from places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

A new diversion program established Thursday in Centre County permits military veterans charged with non-traffic summary violations like disorderly conduct or public drunkenness an opportunity to put those charges on hold while they get treatment. For those who successfully complete the program, the charges would ultimately be dismissed.

“We as a society need to help these young warriors make a smooth transition when they come back home,” Holly Serface, director of veterans affairs for Centre County, told FoxNews.com. “Now with our new diversion program, I am confident we will be able to intervene before any serious problems arise so these veterans can continue living the life they deserve after their honorable service to our country.”

The post A second chance for troubled veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Gen David H. Petraeus Credit:ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES

By: Greg Miller

Posted: Nov.9th, 2012

CIA Director David H. Petraeus has resigned, bringing a surprisingly abrupt end to his brief tenure at the agency as well as his decorated career in national security.

Petraeus met with President Obama on Thursday and indicated he was stepping down because of an extramarital affair. Obama accepted the resignation offer Friday.

“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Petraeus said in a statement distributed Friday to the CIA workforce. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.”

The sudden departure created immediate turmoil in the administration’s national security team just days after Obama won reelection. That team was expected to see a series of changes, but Petraeus, who took the director’s position only 14 months ago, had been expected by many to stay.

Read More: WashingtonPost.com

The post David Petraeus resigns as CIA director appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

by Clare Lopez

If reporting from the Washington Times is accurate, it looks like the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin was in on the plot to attack the U.S. mission in Benghazi. According to an October 27, 2012 report, Libyan witnesses from the Benghazi neighborhood where the U.S. compound was located told reporters from the Associated Press (AP) that “150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants began sealing off the streets” leading to the facility “around nightfall.”

The Department of State “Background Briefing on Libya,” provided by telephone to reporters on October 9, 2012 states that Ambassador Christopher Stevens held his last meeting of the day on September 11 with the Turkish diplomat from 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and then escorted him out to the compound gate to bid farewell. At that point, the briefing states, “Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There’s nothing unusual.”

But the AP witnesses said that, “The neighbors all described the militants setting up checkpoints around the compound at about 8 p.m.” The checkpoints were described as being manned by bearded jihadis in pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns and bearing the logo of the Al-Qaeda terror franchise, Ansar al-Shariah.

That means that the Turkish Consul General would have had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American compound and left the area. There is no record that he phoned a warning to his American colleague, the one he’d just had dinner with, Ambassador Stevens. Given the description of the blockade around the American compound and of the jihadis and their trucks that were manning it, it seems unlikely that the he somehow just failed to notice. “[N]o one could get out or in,” according to one neighbor interviewed by the AP.

Except for the Turkish Consul General, it would appear.

Stevens was a sitting duck, a target surrounded by the jihadist attackers who shortly would take his life and that of his Public Affairs Officer, Sean Smith.

Similarly, this raises the question of the Libyan gate guards from the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade,” the jihadi militia subcontracted by the British firm Blue Mountain, which was the prime contractor for the U.S. Benghazi compound security contract.

What did they know and when did they know it?

Even if the Americans, inside the buildings behind the compound walls and getting ready to retire for the night, were not aware of what was happening in the streets around them, the Libyans of the Martyrs Brigade surely must have been. Yet they provided no warning to the Ambassador and his people either, because again, according to the State Department briefing, the American security officers inside were taken by surprise when the first gunshots and explosions rang out around 9:40 pm.

The State Department must have known much of this when it provided the briefing. So must have the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council and the White House. More than likely, the State Department knew in advance of the Ambassador’s meeting schedule for that day, including his plans for a final dinner meeting with Akin.

To date, however, none of them has mentioned the curious circumstance that Ali Sait Akin knew the American Ambassador and his staff at the Benghazi compound were being set up for slaughter and did nothing to warn them.

The topic of discussion between the Ambassador and his dinner guest has not been revealed, but it would seem to be of even more significance now that it has become obvious the Turkish diplomat and by extension, his government, were at least to some degree complicit in the attack against Ambassador Stevens and the others.

The post Did Turkey Play a Role in Benghazi Attack? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Promoting video gave permission slip to al Qaeda

By Alan Kornman

Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee gives an exclusive interview on the threats to America. Congressman Rogers gives an in depth analysis on several topics having national security importance. Topics covered include:

• The Muslim Brotherhood’s level of engagement with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
• (DHS) whitewashing of FBI documents erasing all references to Islamist adversaries.
• Foreign and Domestic threats of concern to our national security agencies.
• CAIR and other Islamist groups questionable past having a close relationship with our Federal law enforcement agencies.
• The Benghazi cover-up and the need for a full investigation.

One of the major points from the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rogers, is that until our government can openly identify who our enemies are, and the ideologies they’re working to further here in the United States, we will never be able to defeat them.

The post EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) Explains The Real Threats To America appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Will Businesses Lay Off Workers in Your Community Due to Sequestration Defense Budget Cuts?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For more information or to schedule an interview, contact
Christine Brim (cell 202-379-6776, office 202-835-9077) christine@securefreedom.org

WASHINGTON DC, October 8 2012: The Center for Security Policy released today an updated version of the widely-used “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” for cities, counties, congressional districts and states. The reports detail baseline revenues and estimated local economic impacts from the 2013 Defense budget cuts under sequestration. The “Defense Breakdown” reports are being used in dozens of communities across America by media, planners and elected officials, and are freely available at www.forthecommondefense.org/reports.

Voters are concerned about sequestration’s impact. According to the Aerospace Industries Association, “Four out of five likely voters in critical battleground states want our leaders in Washington, DC to find an alternative to ‘sequestration’ budget cuts before the November elections take place, according to a Harris Interactive online poll.”


Employees in your community may not be aware that sequestration layoffs can happen to them. In recent days, controversy has been growing over the Obama administration’s instructions to businesses not to comply with the WARN Act in the face of possible layoffs due to sequestration. The WARN Act requires employers to give employees at least 60-days notice of potential suspension or termination of their jobs.

Who are the defense contractors in your community? The updated “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” for congressional districts include a baseline of FY 2011 revenues earned by each contractor – with complete contractor contact information – at www.forthecommondefense.org/districts. Users can download individual spreadsheets for each congressional district and its bordering zip codes. All reports use FY2011 contract revenue data from the Federal Procurement Data System.

Why are defense contractors not warning workers in October and November about possible sequestration layoffs?

Sequestration defense budget cuts are expected to result in a nationwide loss of an estimated one-million jobs. WARN Act notices would normally have to be provided by companies with 100 or more employees in October and early November - just before the election – since the sequestration budget cuts will take effect on January 2, 2013. Instead, the administration has insisted that the WARN Act must not be followed by employers.

Critics of this suppression of WARN Act notices have questioned the administration’s timing. Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) said in a statement: “Instead of engaging with Congress months ago to chart a resolution to this crisis, President Obama decided to issue politically motivated memos with dubious grounding in the law…Notifications will not be sent to those at risk, even though we have heard directly from CEOs in hearings this summer that layoffs will occur.” The administration has issued several of these WARN Act memos including:

• Obama administration tells Businesses – Don’t warn employees: On July 30 2012, the Obama administration issued instructions to businesses that the WARN Act would not be enforced and notices did not need to go out to employees. The Department of Labor gave as its rationale that, since sequestration‘s potential effects on particular contracts had not been specified, there was insufficient basis to know the impact on employment so the WARN Act would not apply.
• Obama administration tells Pentagon – Don’t make plans: On Thursday, September 27, the Obama administration affirmed its previous instructions to Defense Department civilians and military commanders that they are not permitted to make any plans for sequestration’s effects on particular defense contracts.
  
• Obama administration tells Businesses – If employees sue you for not warning them, taxpayers will pay your legal costs: On Friday, September 28, the Obama administration issued new instructions to businesses that the federal government would pick up (ie, with taxpayer money) any costs or liability the companies face if they end up laying off employees without the required warning. The new instructions emphasized that employees were not to be warned because of “uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts.” Businesses were instructed that their legal costs would be paid by the government only if they do not issue warnings to employees about potential layoffs.

Critics of the administration’s position have sent their own notices to defense employers. On October 5, U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent a letter urging 15 major defense contractors to issue the layoff notices to their employees and stating that they ” plan to block any effort by the Administration to reimburse contractors who fail to provide the required WARN Act notifications.”

Use the “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” to investigate how sequestration will affect your community.

The “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are a tool to help local officials and businesses prepare for the possible impact of job losses and harm to local communities from the sequestration budget cuts of $500 billion over the next 10 years. Defense businesses face $500 billion in sequestration defense cuts – in addition to a separate earlier $487 billion of defense budget cuts already taken, all to start in 2013. In total, defense budget cuts are estimated to total 18% for ten years starting in 2013. In contrast, in estimates thought to be understated, last year Russia reported increases in its defense budget of 9% and China reported increases of 6%.

The “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” provide detailed information about your community:

• City, county and state reports (www.forthecommondefense.org/reports) show FY2011 defense contractor revenues with estimated Sequestration budget cuts of 18%.
• Congressional district reports (www.forthecommondefense.org/districts ) show every contractor’s revenues in each congressional district (and bordering zip codes) for FY 2011, as a baseline (without estimated sequestration budget cuts), as well as complete contact information for each contractor.

The “Defense Breakdown Economic Impact Reports” are a project of the Center for Security Policy for the Coalition for the Common Defense, intended to educate and engage the American public on the importance of maintaining a strong national defense.
###
About the Coalition for the Common Defense
The Coalition for the Common Defense is an alliance of like-minded individuals and organizations who believe that without provision for the “common defense,” as articulated by the Founders, the freedom that has allowed unprecedented opportunity and prosperity to flourish in this country would soon be imperiled. In this new age of budgetary cuts, the Coalition rejects the false choice between military strength and economic health contending that economic prosperity depends on a strong national defense. Through a series of events and strategic partnerships, the coalition is calling on elected officials, candidates for office and others who share our commitment to the common defense to uphold these principles. We must return the United States to sensible fiscal principles without sacrificing our national security.
A full statement of principles can be located here. The Coalition of the Common Defense can be found online at www.forthecommondefense.org.

About the Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.
For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

The post Updated Sequestration Budget Cut reports; Administration tells businesses NOT to send sequestration layoff notices appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

By Lolita C. Baldor

AUCKLAND, New Zealand — The 33,000 additional U.S. troops that President Barack Obama ordered to Afghanistan to tamp down the Taliban attacks nearly two years ago have now left the country, but a new wave of deadly insider attacks and a reassessment of how NATO troops partner with Afghans have raised questions about how well the military strategy is working.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced on Friday the troops had come out, declaring the surge had accomplished its mission.

But after a tumultuous week in Afghanistan that saw commanders put limits on when NATO and Afghan troops can patrol together, Panetta also acknowledged there will still be difficult days ahead.

“The surge did accomplish it objectives of reversing the Taliban momentum on the battlefield and dramatically increasing the size and capability of the Afghan national security forces,” Panetta told reporters at a press conference at the Government House here where he was meeting with New Zealand leaders.

He said the re-deployment of the 33,000 troops was a “very important milestone” and that the U.S. is on track to accomplish its goals in Afghanistan. The withdrawal, which was completed on schedule, still leaves close to 100,000 NATO troops there, including 68,000 Americans.

Panetta’s success mantra, however, is called into question by the decision earlier this week that, at least temporarily, NATO operations with small-sized Afghan units are no longer routine, and will require the approval of the regional commander.

Read More: Military.com

The post All 33K Surge Troops Now Out of Afghanistan appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

This video is fresh (for the public). It was made just six weeks ago in the Atlantic, just off Newport News (Hampton Roads), Virginia … These are the latest sea trials the F-35B on the USS Wasp. They were very successful, with 74 VL’s (Vertical Launch) and STO’s (short take offs) in a three week period.

The F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant completed ship suitability testing aboard the USS WASP (LHD-1) off the coast of Virginia in October 2011. Combined, F-35B test aircraft BF-2 and BF-4 accomplished 72 short takeoffs and 72 vertical landings during the three-week testing period.

The media and the program critics had predicted that we would burn holes in the deck and wash sailors overboard. Neither of which happened. You will notice a sailor standing on the bow of the ship as the jet rotates.

That was an intentional part of the sea trials. No catapult… No hook….It’s a new world out here! The shape and scope of warfare worldwide just changed.

The post F-35B Ship Suitability Testing appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey

General Dempsey…Please Stay Out Of It
by Gerald A. Honigman

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, communicates with Israel’s Lt. General Benny Gantz frequently over security issues. Speaking to reporters upon his arrival in Afghanistan on August 19th, he stated that Israel and the United States view the Iranian nuclear threat differently. Their “clocks are ticking at different paces.” In fairness, the General also mentioned that Israel sees this more seriously “…because a nuclear Iran poses a threat to Israel’s very existence.”

The reality is that a nation some 3,000 miles wide, with over 300 million inhabitants, and two vast oceans separating it from its most-likely enemies should not be telling another nation (and one of its best friends and allies in the world)–which could fit some 34 times just into the state of Texas–what it ought to do to defend itself against would-be nuclear enemies who repeatedly call for its destruction and have already acted upon those deadly desires repeatedly via proxies and so forth.

Let’s be blunt about this…

Israel has never asked for any American blood to be spilt on its behalf. The Afghanistan Dempsey just visited has already cost much American life and limb–besides over a half trillion dollars to date and climbing–and things will likely be no better off there when we leave.

Similar life and limb have been extracted from America on behalf of Muslims in Iraq–and over one trillion dollars spent there as well.

Much is made of the 2.5 billion dollars in aid Israel receives each year. Do the math to find out how long it would take for Israel to receive the money that America has recently spent just in Iraq and Afghanistan (where Americans are killed by “friendly” forces let alone others)–not to mention the rest of the “Arab”/Muslim world…and with no thank you either.

While it’s close to a truism that nations don’t have friends, just interests, we should nevertheless strive for something better.

Israel does not deserve to constantly be placed in danger by its so-called friends. Yet, those in key leadership roles in America–especially in the State Department–have indeed done just that for over a half century now. I won’t get into this nasty issue here, but there is solid documentation supporting this claim…lots of it. Let’s just say that recent “leaks” regarding potential Israeli plans involving flight paths, Azerbaijani bases, and so forth have many past precedents–along with many other types of nastiness as well.

Some like to claim that America pays the price and is despised in the Muslim world because of Israel. So, for example, all would allegedly be well and Iranian pistachios and caviar would flow freely to American markets if only Israel did not exist. The reality is quite different.

For the mullahs, America is indeed the Big Satan and Israel the little one. In Iran and elsewhere in the supremacist “Arab”/Muslim world, Israel is hated because it shares the values and exemplifies the best of the West–even though over half of its Jewish population originated in the Muslim East. They are the other side of the refugee story no one ever hears of.

Israel is hated because it is on the front lines of an age-old subjugating mindset which still dominates Islamic long-term thinking in the region…the conquest of the Dar ul-Islam over the Dar al-Harb. What’s worse, of all the dhimmis, the “kilab yahud”–Jew dogs–are despised the most. A proud, successful, independent state where such folks have control over their own destiny is simply too much to bear…

Having fled in the 7th century C.E. from his Meccan enemies to the Jewish date palm oasis in Medina (founded centuries earlier by Judeans fleeing wars for independence from Rome), after the Jews did not accept Muhammad’s religio-political claims to leadership, he turned on them with a vengeance. He had already made the direction of prayer for his followers facing Jersualem to win the Jews’ support. Before long, with the exception of Yemen, the Arabian Peninsula would be made Judenrein…

So much for Arab claims that all was allegedly good between them and the Jews before the latter, in the modern era, dared to ask for the same thing in one tiny, resurrected state that Arabs demand for themselves in almost two dozen others (which they conquered and forcibly Arabized from mostly non-Arab peoples).

Okay, back to Iran…

General Dempsey is an honorable and intelligent man.

But, on matters concerning the very existence of another, millennially-persecuted and still much targeted people, both he and the country he represents need to go beyond the all-too-common no friends, just interests model.

America has gotten involved in conflicts for reasons less pressing than what it faces with the potential of a nuclear Iran. If Washington chooses not to act decisively itself, the least it can do is not force Israel’s current six million Jews to face the prospects of what befell another six million not that long ago.

www.geraldahonigman.com

The post General Dempsey…Please Stay Out Of It appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

On Saturday morning August 6, 2011, 30 American warriors were killed when their Chinook helicopter was shot down in the Wardak province, Afghanistan. Among the killed were 17 members of SEAL Team SIX.

TODAY…REMEMBER THESE BRAVE MEN AND THEIR FAMILIES

***

WEST COAST – NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL)

Jesse D. Pittman, 27, Ukiah, CA.

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL)

Nicholas P. Spehar, 24, Saint Paul, MN.

≈≈≈

for the sake of these men, may we fight to win

parents of fallen (SEAL) Aaron Vaughn

www.forourson.us

The post IN MEMORIAM – On Saturday morning August 6, 2011, 30 American warriors were killed appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Posted: Aug.1st, 2012

Glendale officials say the Department of Defense has chosen Luke Air Force Base for the new training center for F-35 fighter jets.

“The selection of Luke as the training base for the F-35 ensures our long term viability of our mission of training the world’s greatest fighter pilots, which we’ve been doing at Luke for 7 decades,” said Colonel Robert Webb with Luke’s 56th Fighter Wing said at a news conference.

“It was designed from the ground up to be able to penetrate enemy air defenses and provide advanced capabilities and a complimentary role to the F-22.”

The 71-year-old base in west Glendale was competing with bases in Tucson, New Mexico and Idaho for the F-35 mission.

City officials say the Air Force will station 72 F-35s for the training of both U.S. and foreign pilots.

Luke has long been the training ground for F-16 pilots. The F-35 is intended to eventually replace the aging F-16s and A-10s.

Glendale officials say Luke could receive up to $125 million in federal funds for construction-related projects and the F-35s could arrive as early as next year.

Statement by U.S. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl

This is a proud day for the State of Arizona. We are pleased with the Air Force’s decision to station three F-35 training squadrons at Luke Air Force Base, with the potential to add three more squadrons in future years. This decision demonstrates that Luke AFB will remain the Air Force’s premier pilot training facility and underscores the unparalleled training opportunities offered in Arizona at the Barry M. Goldwater Range.

We welcome the Secretary of the Air Force’s commitment that, in addition to the three F-35 training squadrons, the Air Force will maintain both U.S. and foreign F-16 pilot training at Luke AFB through 2023. This decision is consistent with the Air Force’s goal to leverage existing capacity at Luke AFB to the maximum extent. We also received assurances that the Air Force will station these 72 F-35As at Luke AFB regardless of the status of purchases by partner nations.

This decision is the direct result of the decades-long and ongoing commitment by the State of Arizona and the communities and support organizations around Luke to a mutually beneficial relationship between the Air Force and the people of Arizona. In particular, we commend the “Luke Forward” campaign, which was developed by the West Valley Partners and Fighter Country Partnership to generate awareness and support for the positive impacts that the Air Force’s next generation strike fighter will bring to our state. The Air Force specifically noted in the Record of Decision the impact of proactive efforts by the state and local community to manage noise concerns and to ensure compatible growth on land surrounding Luke AFB. We want to say thank you to the people of Arizona for supporting this vital mission.

The strong support of our communities and the availability of unmatched training resources makes Arizona the favorite to receive additional F-35 squadrons. We will continue to advocate for the vitality of the active military and Guard installations in Arizona as the best choice for this new generation of Air Force aircraft.

Online:
www.luke.af.mil
www.lockheedmartin.com/f35

The post Arizona’s Luke Air Force Base gets F-35 mission appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

TM
Source:http://teapartyftl.blogspot.com

The post SEALS VERSION OF BATTLE AT BIN LADEN COMPOUND appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.